Johannes Bopp1, Veronika Ludwig2, Maria Seifert2, Georg Pelzer2, Andreas Maier3, Gisela Anton2, Christian Riess3. 1. Pattern Recognition Lab, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Martensstr. 3, 91058, Erlangen, Germany. Johannes.Bopp@fau.de. 2. Erlangen Centre for Astroparticle Physics, Department of Physics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erwin-Rommel-Str. 1, 91058, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Pattern Recognition Lab, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Martensstr. 3, 91058, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two phase gratings in an X-ray grating interferometers can solve several technical challenges for clinical use of X-ray phase contrast. In this work, we adapt and evaluate this setup design to clinical X-ray sources and detectors in a simulation study. METHODS: For a given set of gratings, we optimize the remaining parameter space of a dual-phase grating setup using a numerical wave front simulation. The simulation results are validated with experimentally obtained visibility measurements on a setup with a microfocus tube and a clinical X-ray detector. We then confirm by simulation that the Lau condition for the [Formula: see text] grating also holds for two phase gratings. Furthermore, we use a [Formula: see text] grating with a fixed period to search for periods of matching phase grating configurations. RESULTS: Simulated and experimental visibilities agree very well. We show that the Lau condition for a dual-phase grating setup requires the interference patterns of the first phase grating to constructively overlay at the second phase grating. Furthermore, a total of three setup variants for given [Formula: see text] periods were designed with the simulation, resulting in visibilities between 4.5 and 9.1%. CONCLUSION: Dual-phase gratings can be used and optimized for a medical X-ray source and detector. The obtained visibilities are somewhat lower than for other Talbot-Lau interferometers and are a tradeoff between setup length and spatial resolution (or additional phase stepping, respectively). However, these disadvantage appears minor compared to the overall better photon statistics, and the fact that dual-phase grating setups can be expected to scale to higher X-ray energies.
PURPOSE: Two phase gratings in an X-ray grating interferometers can solve several technical challenges for clinical use of X-ray phase contrast. In this work, we adapt and evaluate this setup design to clinical X-ray sources and detectors in a simulation study. METHODS: For a given set of gratings, we optimize the remaining parameter space of a dual-phase grating setup using a numerical wave front simulation. The simulation results are validated with experimentally obtained visibility measurements on a setup with a microfocus tube and a clinical X-ray detector. We then confirm by simulation that the Lau condition for the [Formula: see text] grating also holds for two phase gratings. Furthermore, we use a [Formula: see text] grating with a fixed period to search for periods of matching phase grating configurations. RESULTS: Simulated and experimental visibilities agree very well. We show that the Lau condition for a dual-phase grating setup requires the interference patterns of the first phase grating to constructively overlay at the second phase grating. Furthermore, a total of three setup variants for given [Formula: see text] periods were designed with the simulation, resulting in visibilities between 4.5 and 9.1%. CONCLUSION: Dual-phase gratings can be used and optimized for a medical X-ray source and detector. The obtained visibilities are somewhat lower than for other Talbot-Lau interferometers and are a tradeoff between setup length and spatial resolution (or additional phase stepping, respectively). However, these disadvantage appears minor compared to the overall better photon statistics, and the fact that dual-phase grating setups can be expected to scale to higher X-ray energies.
Authors: André Ritter; Peter Bartl; Florian Bayer; Karl C Gödel; Wilhelm Haas; Thilo Michel; Georg Pelzer; Jens Rieger; Thomas Weber; Andrea Zang; Gisela Anton Journal: Opt Express Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Adrian Sarapata; Marian Willner; Marco Walter; Thomas Duttenhofer; Konradin Kaiser; Pascal Meyer; Christian Braun; Alexander Fingerle; Peter B Noël; Franz Pfeiffer; Julia Herzen Journal: Opt Express Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Katharina Hellbach; Andre Yaroshenko; Felix G Meinel; Ali Ö Yildirim; Thomas M Conlon; Martin Bech; Mark Mueller; Astrid Velroyen; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Fabian Bamberg; Sigrid Auweter; Maximilian Reiser; Oliver Eickelberg; Franz Pfeiffer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Kai Scherer; Lorenz Birnbacher; Konstantin Willer; Michael Chabior; Julia Herzen; Franz Pfeiffer Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Andre Yaroshenko; Katharina Hellbach; Ali Önder Yildirim; Thomas M Conlon; Isis Enlil Fernandez; Martin Bech; Astrid Velroyen; Felix G Meinel; Sigrid Auweter; Maximilian Reiser; Oliver Eickelberg; Franz Pfeiffer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 4.379